Appeal No. 2006-2534
Application No. 10/789,411
Therefore, to the extent claimed, Carlson describes every feature of claim 1 including the
plate attached to the end surfaces of the rotor core laminations such that an axial deflection of the
laminations is allowed. In view of the discussion above, we find that Carlson does disclose all
the claimed limitations and therefore, prima facie anticipates the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, as well as claim 15, argued together as
one group, over Carlson is sustained.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013